DAY TWENTY-SEVEN: Trial Against David Castillo

Last update: May 30 at 4:15 pm

Main Points of the Day

• Witness Indyra María Mendoza Aguilar from the organization Cattrachas was called by the attorneys representing the Cáceres family to testify. As someone who monitored and reported to the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights about threats against and security incidents experienced Berta Cáceres, Mendoza provided a comprehensive overview of these concerns including meeting David Castillo, being told by Berta not to trust him, and testifying that DESA played a large role in Berta’s difficult security situation in and post-2013.

• The defense proposes controversial Honduran teacher Edgardo Rodríguez, as a technical consultant to question expert witness Gladys Tzul who began presenting her analysis: “Situation and Condition of Violence Experienced by Indigenous Women and Women Human Rights Defenders: The case of Berta Cáceres and the defense of the Gualcarque river”

• Expert witness Tzul uses sociological theories and various chat messages presented as evidence in the case to describe gender-based violence that occurred between Castillo and Cáceres; and Castillo and DESA’s mechanisms of control over Berta as an indigenous, female, human rights defender, among others. Tzul also discussed the complex means in which control over women’s bodies and subjugation are necessary in order to achieve control over communal territories.

More Details

Indrya María Mendoza Aguilar, Human Rights Defender from Organization Cattrachas Testifies

• [NOTE: It was extremely difficult to write the details of this testimony as the witness spoke very fast. There are many details that are missing from these notes]

• Mendoza started by giving a declaration describing the work she did at monitoring and documenting threats against Berta Cáceres’s life as a result of her work as a human rights defender, and particularly the work she did with COPINH in Rio Blanco from 2014 to 2016. In 2013, Cattrachas started to follow the actions that COPINH was carrying out in Rio Blanco, particularly the murder of Tomas Garcia. And then from there, the criminalization process and hate campaigns against Berta. Mendoza also did follow up on the implementation and monitoring of Berta’s IACHR precautionary measures. She met David Castillo on July 3, 2014 during a celebration at the US Embassy. Cattrachas was invited because the policies of the US Embassy at the time were pro-LGBTI. In the line waiting to sign the attendance list, David Castillo said to her: “I’m from DESA.” Mendoza asked him what he was doing there. Castillo responded: “I’m not the bad guy” and gave her his business card. The following day, Berta wrote her asked Mendoza if she had been at the Embassy. Berta said she found out through Castillo and she would explain why she’s in touch with him later. Then Mendoza received an email from Castillo saying “it was a pleasure to meet you” and she thought that was unusual considering the exchange they had had. Mendoza also describes a meeting that was coordinated to occur in Cattrachas office in Tegucigalpa between Cáceres and Castillo. When asked why she was meeting him, Berta told Mendoza it was because he gave her information but warned her not to trust him.

• The Private Accusers Question Mendoza:

  • [NOTE: The witness’s answers were more extensive than represented here. It was difficult to note a lot of the details because of the speed of Mendoza’s answers]

  • Q: What was your relationship with Berta Cáceres? A: We were compañeras de lucha [comrades in the struggle]

  • Q: What was Berta’s role in the Agua Zarca struggle? A: From 2006 and on, COPINH, which Berta was part of, had a mission to protect their territories for everyone. This was COPINH’s mission

  • Q: What consequences did Berta and COPINH face as a result of the defense of their territories? They suffered more direct attacks when DESA began operating in Rio Blanco

  • Q: You have a registry and monitored the threats against Berta, what were the risks she faced? She faced a lot of risk that came from many places - private industry, and the press being some

  • Q: In your documentation, who was putting Berta and COPINH at risk? A: The Madrid family, DESA, Sergio, Bustillo and people from the community, almost all of them had the last name Madrid.

  • Q: You did a risk analysis, what is that? A: To identify patterns and help identify real risks.

  • Q: You talked about declarations made in the news, who made them? A: I don’t have all the information and names now. People from the private lobby, like Elsia Paz, and others.

  • Q: How did the criminalization against Berta start in 2013? A: The threats against Berta were not the same types as threats prior to 2013. It wasn’t just threats but also actions against COPINH. The criminalization started by accusing Berta of having an illegal weapon that didn’t exist. This diverted their energy from defending their territory to defending themselves against these attacks.

  • Q: What security measures did Berta have and how were they implemented? A: In the beginning she was given a phone number to call, the number of the Ministry of Security, a person named Sagrario Purdott.

  • Q: What would Purdott do when there were security problems? A: She would say that police would be sent.

  • Q: How did you find out about Berta’s murder? A: They called me at 3 am. I immediately made calls and contacted people like Karla Cueva [Minister of Human Rights]

• The Prosecutors Question Mendoza:

  • Q: You said that Berta Cáceres was a land defender. What else did she do? A: She and COPINH accompanied struggles all over the country, in Zacate Grande, Cortés … it wasn’t just about the Gualcarque river

  • Q: What were the threats at the project site in Rio Blanco? A: Security guards, military, police and then people from the community that worked with DESA or sold their land to the company

  • Q: What other companies were there? A: DESA and others but mostly DESA

  • Q: You said that in 2009, Berta Cáceres received precautionary measures from the IACHR, why? A: She received them for defending democracy in the context of the coup

  • Q: How many precautionary measures were given to her? A: She always had measures and we informed the commission throughout the years about security risks.

  • Q: When was the last time Berta went to Agua Zarca? A: I don’t know

  • Q: How did Berta send you details about the threats against her? A: Through email

• The Defense Questions Mendoza

  • Q: You were very informed about Berta, what other types of projects did Berta influence? A: Berta and COPINH were involved in the defense of various territories like Zacate Grande, Palmerola, and Cortés amongst others

  • Q: What communication did you have with Berta about threats in the area related to mining? A: I collected information about the risks .. [rest of answer was hard to catch]

  • Q: According to your personal relationship and your analysis of press reports, how was Berta’s relationship with mayors in the areas where COPINH was present? A: I don’t know. There were a lot of mayors that would talk against COPINH

  • Q: How many communities are in Rio Blanco? A: I don’t know … El Barreal … I don’t remember

  • Q: How many times did you visit the zone, the project? A: My role was outside of the conflict area

  • Q: How many communities are part of COPINH? A: I dkno’t know

  • Q: What is COPINH’s support or social proposals in the communities where they work? A: They defend life and their territories

  • Q: How do the communities react with actions taken by COPINH? Was there democracy about COPINH’s presence in communities? A: It wasn’t an issue of democracy, if the communities decide to defend their river, like the Gualcarque river which they did starting in 2006, then it’s a human right, it’s not about democracy

  • Q: What community was Berta from? A: She was from La Esperanza but she was a human rights defender.

  • Q: What was the reaction of the communities with respect to the money that Berta won? A: The award was about the recognition of her work, it wasn’t about money. I don’t know.

  • Q: In the communication with Berta, did she say what issues the communities have about the money? A: No

  • Q: Do you know how frequently Cáceres and Castillo met? A: No

  • Q: Do you know when David picked Berta up from the hotel where she was staying? A: No, I don’t know

  • Q: What did you know about the relationship between Berta and Aureliano Molina? A: They were compañeros de lucha. They had a personal relationship

  • Q: When you said that you saw David Castillo at the Embassy, you said that he was “the most hated”, why? A: Because they had just assassinated Tomas and DESA was responsible and there were threats against COPINH

  • Q: You said that DESA was responsible, who was responsible? A: It was the military [that killed Tomas Garcia] and DESA called them and the police.

Defense Presents Technical Consultant to Assist Their Questioning of Expert Witness Harald Waxenecker

• The private accuser’s expert witness Harald Waxenecker briefly joined the trial via Zoom. As he is based in Europe with a significant time difference, he requested to change his presentation to the following day at a more appropriate time. His presentation will last between approximately 3 to 4 hours and is titled: “Analysis of Roberto David Castillo Mejía’s position of corporate-institutional power and his involvement in the planning, coordination, and execution of Berta Cáceres’s murder.” The court granted this request.

• The defense presents a technical consultant to assist the defense in questioning Waxenecker. Given the difference in the consultant’s credentials in comparison to Waxenecker, the court rejects the technical consultant.

Testimony of Witness Melissa Cardoza Must Take Place in Front of Honduran Consulate in Mexico

• A witness presented by the private accusers, Melissa Cardoza, briefly joins the trial from Mexico via Zoom. As a result of an emergency trip, Cardoza is unable to appear before the court in person to testify.

• The court rules that they will accept Cardoza’s testimony but only if it’s given in the presence of the Honduran Consulate in Mexico City. This would ensure that the testimony is spontaneous. The private accusers and the court commit to making this request to the Consulate and for Cardoza to appear via Zoom at another date.

Expert Witness Gladys Tzul On Violence and Gender

• Tzul begins by outlining the objectives of her analysis: 1. Study the situation of violence suffered by women that defend the Gualcarque river and in particular, the case of Berta Cáceres, 2. Analyze the correlation between violence against Berta Cáceres and the presence of DESA, 3. Examine the effects of female leadership in indigenous communities and the consequences of gender-based violence against Berta Cáceres that ultimately led to her murder.

• Tzul outlines the theoretical and methodological frameworks and scholars used in her analysis including sociology, oral histories, and the judicial files provided to her.

• Tzul drew ten conclusions:

  • 1. Berta Cáceres was a woman, Lenca, political leader and general coordinator of the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras. COPINH collectively produce and politically coordinate a process of communal defense of the Gualcarque river, together with the communities of women, men, children, elderly, who together, articulated a communal and pan-indigenous defense of water, land, and communal living.

  • 2. The subjugation and control of women’s bodies are necessary to allow for the devastation of communal territories. This is understand in a broad manner in the harassment campaigns against Lenca women in their defense of the Gualcarque river. In the case of Berta Cáceres, persecution, monitoring, harassment triggered her murder. The murder of women plays a specific role of terrorizing the communities.

  • 3. The communal struggles of Lenca women are repressed with diverse mechanisms of violence and discipline - the use of force, discrediting, and death is used to achieve the imposition of capitalist investment on communal lands. Because of this, Berta Cáceres’s murder must be understood as a territorial femicide

  • 4. Colonization, sexism and racism work not only in the economic realm but also in symbolic material ways when they liquidate bodies, feelings, and knowledge. This is explained under a business model which contradicts the communal resolutions that determine the communal nature of the territory in Rio Blanco. In the same way, the sacred notions about destiny, origins, and life of the Gualcarque river demonstrate a clear tension with a business model that seeks to name the river as a water resource - exploitable.

  • 5. Lenca women have generated political mechanisms to confront physical, sexual and psychological violence. In this context, the Popular Women’s Courts that Berta Cáceres created and supported can be understood. These courts helped with communal struggles and put the problems of violence and harassment as central topics to be dealt with. Berta Cáceres was well-versed in the mechanisms of violence against women

  • 6. The masculine business class, the state, and corporations attack, try to discredit, and harass feminine leadership by defaming and criticizing their status as women in front of their family and their community. This is done by persecuting, harassing, and monitoring them. They use violent and docile mechanisms and strategies in order to dominate women in leadership positions. When this is not achieved, they are murdered.

    • Tzul presents several chat between Cáceres and Castillo to demonstrate this. One chat outlines how Cáceres reaffirms her struggle as a leader of COPINH as Castillo complains about her organizing.

  • 7. One can see evidence of the state and corporate alliance that DESA used to monitor Berta Cáceres's actions as a leader. She is identified and observed. Both promoted legal complains against her as a person that had influence in the community and that opposed the construction of the Agua Zarca dam.

    • Tzul uses another chat between Cáceres and Castillo to show this

  • 8. Berta Cáceres as a defender of life - which was revealed in the way she acted and in her work as COPINH’s coordinator, along with Lenca communities - sought to maintain control and take care of communal territories and their means of life. Her work as a leader achieved the combination of defending life and being critical of violence against women.

  • 9. The process in which women relate to men is always unequal. Because of this, when referring to a male business manager and a female community leader, one can name diverse layers of inequality. The friendship can only occur in unequal conditions. A male manager that seeks to exploit land cannot be friends with a community leader that defends land.

  • 10. The trajectory of gender-based violence appears in the relationship between Castillo and Cáceres. He seeks to be her friend, he offers her favors, he provides support, he monitors her with the objective of her ceding to his conditions. When he does not achieve this, he carries out actions against her as a person by criminalizing her and seeking to neutralize and eliminate her political actions as an obstacle to the economic project that he represents. These actions lead to Berta Cáceres’s murder.

DAY TWENTY-SIX: Trial Against David Castillo

Last update: May 30 at 11:23 am [final update included adding more details of the defense’s questioning of Douglas Bustillo]

Main Points of the Day

• Daniel Atala Midence first appeared on zoom to testify but after objections from the prosecutors, was told by the court he had to appear in person. Once he took the stand in person, Atala Midence informed the court that he was making use of his constitutional right not to testify, arguing that he is under investigation. After the prosecutors confirmed that this is indeed correct and after several protests by the private accusers, Atala will not be required by the court to testify.

• Convicted murderer and DESA’s former head of security, Douglas Bustillo testified that he informed David Castillo about COPINH and Berta Cáceres’s actions related to the project. Former DESA employee, Hector García Mejía described the divisions and conflicts in the Rio Blanco sector as a result of the project’s arrival to the area.

• The trial was suspended at 9:35 pm and is convened for 9:30 am tomorrow.

Daniel Atala attempts to testify via zoom before the court orders him to appear in person. Picture by COPINH.

More Details

Today was a long and grueling day. The audio was difficult to hear during several moments of the trial. It cut out several times as well.

Final Evidence Presented by the Prosecution

• Two protected witnesses were not located by the court. In place of verbal testimony, the court admitted the written testimony of Protected Witness ABC (Gustavo Castro) but rejected the written statement by Protected Witness Triple A (who testified in the trial against the 7 hitman)

• Protected Witness ABC’s (Gustavo Castro) extensive testimony taken by prosecutors on March 3, 2016 was read in court.

Daniel Atala Midence Is Called To Testify

• The court notifies all parties that Daniel Atala will be testifying via Zoom. Just as things are about to get underway, the prosecutors ask the court why Atala has not appeared in person and whether he advised the court in writing, about why he needed to testify via Zoom. The private accusers supported the prosecutor’s request. The court initially ruled that others expert witnesses had testified via Zoom and did not see any obstacle to Atala doing the same. When prosecutors argue that it’s not the same for a foreign expert or individual outside of Tegucigalpa to testify via Zoom versus a person located in Tegucigalpa, the court changes its decision. Daniel Atala is asked to make his way to the court.

• Once arriving to the court, Atala is sworn in. He indicates that he is a friend of David Castillo’s and that they worked together. Then he declares that he is a person that is being investigated. He lists page numbers of the judicial file and mentions the testimony given by telecommunications analyst Brenda Barahona, who analyzed his phone conversations. He invokes Article 88 of the Constitution [the Honduran version of the 5th?] and tells the court that he has been advised by his lawyers, not to testify.

  • The court responds saying they have no knowledge that he is under investigation or that he has been accused. The judge asks the prosecutors if this is true.

  • The prosecutors confirm that Atala is being investigated and argue that Art. 101 gives investigated individuals the right to appear before a prosecutors (not in court) with their lawyer and give a testimony. Since Art. 88 gives Atala the right not to testify, the prosecutors argue that he should not be required to testify.

  • Private accusers: Argue that Atala is using his constitutional right but that the article is relevant only to individuals that have been indicted. There has been no indictment presented against Atala and he is clearly someone with knowledge of the crime which would assist the court at getting to the bottom of the crime. Not letting Atala declare about what he knows, violates the rights of the victims. The private accusers have asked the prosecutors to act against those that are responsible and have received no response. There are no interviews from Daniel Atala or other DESA executives about the crime.

  • Defense: Argue that Atala should not testify based on Art. 88 and that the prosecutors have confirmed that he is under investigation.

  • The court rules that Atala is being investigated which would mean to take his testimony, would violate the constitutional right outlined in Art. 88.

Douglas Bustillo, DESA’s Former Head of Security, Testifies

NOTE: The audio was difficult to hear at moments, likely because of the placement of Bustillo’s microphone. The audio on the Facebook live stream also cut out for approximately 10 to 15 minutes while the private accusers were questioning Bustillo.

• Bustillo starts by saying he worked with Castillo but that he has nothing to say. He was convicted in this same court and that Brenda Barahona had made up a lot of things.

• Private Accusers Questions Bustillo:

  • Q: You said you worked with DESA, what was your relationship with the company? A: I was a consultant

  • Q: What type of consultant? A: In security

  • Q: What date did you start working there? A: On May 8, 2013

  • Q: What was your responsibilities in this position? A: To take care of the project’s personnel. There were guards at the project 24 hours a day.

  • Q: What were the main security risks in the area? A: None other than protests that would happen.

  • Q: What type of security did the company have to handle the protests led by COPINH? A: Actions, none, I organized the security and that’s why they paid me. I had to respond to the things that happened there.

  • Q: Why were the police and military in the zone? A: Initially there weren’t any police there. Riot police would come from Comayagua and Santa Barbara to provide security

  • Q: How frequently would they come to the area? A: When there were protests

  • Q: Who called the police? A: I did

  • Q: When you talk about riot police, how many police or military is this? A: 20 militaries and 20 police

  • Q: How did you know that there were going to be protests in the area? A: Because in El Barreal [community in Rio Blanco sector], the people knew when they were going to happen and when people would go to the project site.

  • Q: What people in El Barreal? A: Everyone knew when they would happen

  • Q: Who did you communicate with directly about this? A: I would just chat with them and they would tell me

  • Q: What relevant incidents do you remember? A: One relevant incident was when they lit something on fire [inaudible .. something about tents?]

  • Q: What did you do as the person in charge when these things happened? A: Nothing because the police arrived.

  • Q: How long would the police stay in the area? A: They would stay for the duration of the actions and then leave.

  • Q: Who helped the police and military travel to the region? A: Their superiors

  • Q: When did you stop working with DESA? A: On July 31, 2015

  • Q: Why did you stop working there? A: They fired me because I committed an offense. I had an accident in the area.

  • Q: How was your relationship with David Castillo? A: Normal

  • Q: What communication did you last have with David Castillo? A: I called him in February 2016 for a job in the southern part of the country

  • Q: Do you remember other dates that you called him? A: No, I don’t remember

  • Q: What about for the job in the south? A: The opportunity was there but he didn’t know when it would start. I had to wait

  • Q: When did he call you for that work? A: Between July and December [2015]

  • Q: What other person did you talk to from DESA? A: I also talked with Sergio Rodriguez to discuss security

  • Q: What company were you working with in San Pedro Sula? A: PCI

  • Q. What period of time did you work with PCI? A: Between August 15 and December 2015

  • Q: Why did you stop working with PCI? A: I spoke with the manager. I didn’t want to be in San Pedro Sula [hard to hear, cannot be certain this is what he responded]

  • Q: What was your relationship with David Castillo while you were working with DESA? A: It was normal, it was a working relationship

  • [The private accusers asks if the court can put Bustillo’s phone records in front of him. The court rejects this request saying that the phone records were admitted for expert witnesses]

  • Q: Did you know Berta Cáceres? Q: Yes, when she arrived to the project camp to protest

  • Q: What contact did you have with Berta? A: None

  • Q: What did Berta’s presence mean for the company? A: None, there were just many protests

  • Q: Who would you communicate these protests to? A: To David

  • Q: What actions did you take to guard the security of the people and the property? A: There was a large gate … [inaudible]

  • Q: In what way did you have contact with Berta Cáceres? A: I didn’t have contact with her

  • Q: What type of work was Castillo going to give you in February? A: It was the same type of work I was doing in Agua Zarca, I had to go to the south to do security for solar project Santa Lucía.

  • Q: How many times did you contact Castillo about this? A: I called him to ask if there were employment opportunities

  • Q: What specifications did he give you about the job? A: None, just that it was to provide security similar to Agua Zarca

  • Q: When did you find out about Berta Cáceres’ murder? A: The same day on the radio

  • Q: What communication did you have with DESA personnel about Berta Cáceres’s murder? A: I spoke with Sergio. He said he was listening to the news as I was headed to San Pedro Sula for work. And at noon, I spoke with David and they thought they were going to occupy the project’s camp.

  • Q: What was your reaction when you found out about Berta’s murder? A: I don’t know .. she wasn’t a family member .. [inaudible]

  • Q: The communication you had with Sergio Rodriguez about Berta’s murder - how was the discussion? A: He told me that it was in the news and thats it

  • Q: How was the same discussion with David Castillo? A: The news was being reported internationally and they were worried that they would go light the project on fire. David Castillo said he’d notify people at the project site.

  • Q: If you were fired from DESA, why did you communicate any incidents to David Castillo? A: I didn’t leave upset at the company … [inaudible]

  • Q: The day of Berta Cáceres’s murder, where were you going? A: I was going for a work interview.

  • Q: Where? A: I went to San Pedro Sula, I arrived to the bus terminal, took a bus to Choloma and the a taxi to [names place].

  • Q: When did you return to Tegucigalpa? A: The same day in the evening

  • AUDIO CUTS OUT FOR APPROXIMATELY 10 TO 15 MINUTES

• Prosecutors Question Douglas Bustillo

  • Q: Before you worked at DESA, where did you work? A: With the Honduran Armed Forces

  • Q: What was your position? A: I was a Infantry Lieutenant

  • Q: How did you obtain the knowledge you have about security? A: From the Armed Forces and other things I learned online

  • Q: Who was Sergio Rodriguez? He was the social manager

  • Q: How was your relationship with Sergio Rodriguez? Normal, we had a working relationship

  • Q: Who was in charge of the project site in San Francisco de Ojüera? A: I don’t know because I wasn’t working with the project at that time

  • Q: When you worked with DESA, who was in charge? A: Engineer Díaz [not entirely sure if thats what the response was]

  • Q: You mentioned that you worked on the left side, and then the project moved to the right side, what does this mean? A: The right side was when the project was located in [the department of] Intibuca. I left the project when it moved to the left side [of the river].

  • Q: Did you make any legal complaints related to COPINH’s actions? A: The person responsible for that was the legal representative

  • Q: Who was the legal representative? A: I don’t know but it was a woman

  • Q: What relationship did you have with people that passed you information about COPINH’s protests in the community? A: I didn’t have a relationship with them, I would see them and they would tell me.

  • Q: Who informed you about these protests, specifically? A: They were people that I’d meet “along the way”

  • Q: How many were from COPINH? A: They were all from [the community of] El Barreal

  • Q: What information did they give you about Berta Cáceres? A: They only mentioned when they were going to protest in La Tejera [community in Rio Blanco]

  • Q: How did the people in El Barreal know about protests if they weren’t from COPINH? A: Because they had family members that were part of COPINH

  • Q: These families, who are they? A: I don’t know because I didn’t spend time with them

  • Q: When you worked in San Pedro Sula, what other investigated individuals did you have a relationship with? A: With Henrry

  • Q: Where did you meet him? A: I didn’t know him until he asked for a job and when he got to the company. He went through the application process for work.

  • Q: Who took Henrry to work at the company? A: I don’t know

  • Q: When you left PCI [security company], what relationship did you continue to have with this person? A: Relationship? None.

  • Q: What position did you have at PCI? I was the operations manager

  • Q: What was your work in terms of the administration of people that worked with you? A: I was a supervisor and supervised the the people that worked there.

  • Q: What type of training did Henrry have? A: I don’t know

  • Q: When you worked at DESA, what was Castillo’s position? A: Manager

  • Q: And Daniel Atala? A: Administrative manager

  • Q: What type of communication did you have with Daniel Atala? We talked when I needed money for gas or other maintenance

  • Q: What was your promotion rank in the military? A: 34

  • Q: What was Mariano Díaz’s promotion? A: 34

  • Q: What was your relationship with Mariano Díaz Chavez? A: We would meet up sometimes and drink beer sometimes

  • Q: You said that Berta Cáceres would take people from outside of the community to Rio Blanco. How do you know this? A: The buses would pass El Barreal

  • Q: In protests, how would you know who was Berta Cáceres? A: I would hear people call her Berta

  • Q: After the protest you mentioned, when did you see Berta? A: She was in Rio Blanco on May 25 and the last time I saw her, I think it was July 11, 2013. I also saw her in September 2014.

  • Q: Where? A: At the project site

• Defense Questions Bustillo

  • Q: In 2013, what knowledge do you have of a child being killed? A: A member of COPINH died and then a young person - 14 years old - was killed.

  • Q: You mentioned a project that Castillo was working on in the south, when was the first conversation you had about that? A: In November 2015

  • Q: When you said you traveled south with Sergio, what did you do when you went there? A: We went to see the area. We checked it on a map online but I wanted to see it in person and Sergio had to do the part in the community.

  • Q: Can the court put the map in front of the witness? [Secretary gives him the map that is part of the judicial file]. Can you describe the map? A: There’s the project site and the highway to Choluteca.

  • Q: What are the project’s coordinates according to the map? A: Reads the coordinates

  • Q: How many trips did you make to the project in the south? A: I went once with someone and twice myself

  • Q: When were these trips? A: In March and February

  • Q: In your experience, how were you going to plan the security strategy for that project? A: We were preparing for whatever could happen. We had incidents that occurred in Agua Zarca so we tried to avoid the same problems.

Ex-DESA Employee Hector García Mejía Takes the Stand

The witness gives a brief declaration saying that he found out about Berta’s murder in the media and that he had nothing to do with it.

• The private accusers begin the questions:

  • Q: What community are you from? A: Valle de Angeles

  • Q: Do you have knowledge of DESA’s work in Rio Blanco? A: Sure, in the beginning they went to the communities to ask if they were in favor of the project and I found out that they were interested in building the project. We were informed of the benefits. DESA asked if they could buy the land and the company went to the communities to see if they could purchase it. The communities said “no problem” because the people can do what they want with their land. They started to work in El Barreal. Everything started ok until COPINH arrived and that’s when things got distorted. That’s when violence started and weird things like crop destruction and death of cows started to occur. I didn’t like this because we were all compañeros. I never saw Berta. When they destroyed our water project, the next day (Sunday), we met to discuss it. I didn’t know what to say or think but I asked God to give me the words. We lost our water project. Today, we have a big project that the entire community benefits from [the court interrupts him to keep him focused on the question]

  • Q: You made reference to a meeting, when were these meetings? A: In 2009 but I don’t know the days and hours.

  • Q: You said that DESA said there would be benefits, what did they say they would be? A: Projects, schools, they would fix the road, a water project, electricity, a maternal health unit .. just the building was built for that.

  • Q: You said that you started to work in El Barreal? A: No, I didn’t. This was work for other people. I was not interested in those positions in El Barreal. I wasn’t in favor or against, I was working with an NGO that was building hoes in El Barreal

  • Q: What date did COPINH arrive in El Barreal? A: In 2013

  • Q: And what did COPINH people say? A: they just went to La Tejera, not to my community or any other community, just to La Tejera

  • Q: You said that when COPINH showed up, that things started to get intense, why? A: There was destruction and that’s when murders started

  • Q: What murders? A: Well my two nephews- William and Michael, and Santos Dominguez. They lied to Michael and took him to the river and killed him with a machete. There was another murder that occurred, people were accused. My brother Olvin Garcia Mejía was also killed [parts of this answer were inaudible]

  • Q: You said that the proposal by the company was interesting, why? A: Because we are forgotten communities [other parts of answer hard to hear]

  • Q: In these meetings, what did you learn about the project? A: They were going to construct a dam on the river

  • Q: What was your relationship with DESA employees? A: In the beginning, I didn’t know them but then after, I met them when discussing the projects. I met a few of them, I had communication with Ramon Rodriguez Orellana

  • Q: Through what means did you communicate with Sergio [Rodriguez Orellana]? A: We would talk by telephone

  • Q: Did you know Berta? A: Yes, since 1998

  • Q: Did you know who Berta Cáceres was inside the community? A: We knew she was the general coordinator of COPINH

  • Q: How did you find out about Berta’s death? By the radio

  • Q: What negative impacts did the company inform would exist because of the project? A: They company did a consultation. They did not specify because the studies weren’t 100% finished.

  • Q: How did you approve the project if you didn’t know all the impacts? A: They said there would be negative impacts but that they would minimize them. And we didn’t have problems if the machines destroyed something. We always saw the project as favorable.

  • Q: What land was sold to the company? A: In the area where the dam was being built, in Los Panales [?], and where the machine house was located.

  • Q: How was the land purchased? A: The owner of the land knows - it was private land

  • Q: What does Berta Cáceres and La Tejera have to do with the project changing sides of the river? A: The blockade didn’t let the company work, so they had to change sides. It was the same concession

  • Q: What is the name of the organization you are apart of? A: [Didn’t catch full name but something like] Council for Development of the Communities in Northern Intibuca and Southern Santa Barbara

  • Q: When did the council get organized? A: In 2013

  • Q: How many people worked with DESA? A: about 60 workers

  • Q: How many workers were members of COPINH? A: None

  • Q: How many were against Agua Zarca? A: None

• Prosecutors Questions for García Mejía

  • Q: When DESA went to the community, how did they convene meetings? A: They would communicate through the patronatos [elected community council]

  • Q: How many people from the communities would show up to those meetings? A: 150 people more or less

  • Q: To have these meetings, how long did they take and was the mayor present? A: The mayor wasn’t there

  • Q: But you said before, that the mayor attended the meetings? A: The mayor met with the patronatos [elected community council]

  • Q: How many patronatos participated? A: La Tejera, Valle de Angeles, San Bartolo, La Unión, Rio Blanco [communities from Rio Blanco]

  • Q: You mentioned that the project went somewhere else? A: It went to the left side of the river in San Francisco de Ojüera.

  • Q: In what department? A: Santa Barbara

• Defense Questions García Mejía

  • Q: What is Rio Blanco? A: It’s a sector located in northern Intibuca

  • Q: How many rivers are in the sector? A: Just Rio Blanco, El Canjel [he may have said one more?]

  • Q: How many people live in Rio Blanco, approximately? A: 2000

  • Q: How many of those 2000 people were part of COPINH? A: Maybe 25 or 30 people

  • Q: What benefits have you received as Lenca from COPINH? A: Absolutely nothing

  • Q: What year was the project abandoned? A: After Berta Cáceres’s murder

  • Q: Did David Castillo go to the area a lot? A: No

  • Q: You said that the water project was destroyed, who destroyed it? A: The information we have received says it was a COPINH member

  • Q: From what community is Berta Cáceres from? A: She’s not from the area.

  • Q: Which communities believe that there are spirits in the river? A: That was a joke that they started to use in 2013 when the company started. They would say that it was sacred. It was a joke

  • Q: When did they stop the blockade at El Roble? A: Approximately 2014

  • Q: The social projects brought by the company, how many communities benefited? A: 11 communities

  • Q: You said that there were four communities in Rio Blanco, but 11 communities benefited? A: The rest were in San Francisco de Ojüera

DAY TWENTY-FIVE: Trial Against David Castillo

Last update: May 28 at 9:15 am

Main Points of the Day

• The court denied the defense’s request to release David Castillo from pre-trial detention. As a result of the delays caused by motions presented by Castillo’s attorneys, the court extended his pre-trial detention until September 23, 2021.

• Tomorrow, the trial will continue after today’s brief interruption for the bail hearing. Daniel Atala will be called to testify by the Cáceres family’s lawyers. The trial is convened for 9 am.

More Details

Court Rejects Changing Castillo’s Pre-Trial Detention Status

• The request for a bail hearing was presented on May 24th, 2021 as Castillo’s pre-trial detention was set to expire on May 25, 2021 as per a court decision made on September 28, 2020 that extended it for 8 months and 23 days (until May 25, 2021).

• The court ruled that because of the following delays, Castillo’s pretrial detention would be extended yet again for 118 days which account for all the delays caused by Castillo’s defense. The court explained the delays:

  • The first request to recuse the court on September 7, 2020. The decision was denied by the Appeals court. This caused a 6 day delay

  • The audiencia de nulidades [kind of like a hearing to hear arguments about violations of process] scheduled for October 8, 2020 did not take place. The defense presented a second request to recuse the court on October 7, 2020. This caused a 20 day delay

  • The audiencia de nulidades took place on October 27. The defense presented an appeal which was declared inadmissible on November 10, 2020. The court file was not returned from the Appeals court until December 11, 2020. During this time frame, the evidentiary hearing was scheduled and was suspended as the court waited for the appeals process. This caused a 42 day delay.

  • The evidentiary hearing was then scheduled to take place on January 11, 2021 but was cancelled because the defense presented a third request to recuse the court on that same day. The request was rejected by the Appeals court. This caused a 12 day delay

  • The evidentiary hearing was scheduled yet again for February 10 but it didn’t take place because additional appeals were presented causing it to be suspended. This caused an 8 day delay

  • The evidentiary hearing finally took place on February 18, 2021. The trial was then scheduled to begin on April 6 to April 26 but was suspended because the defense presented a fourth request to recuse the court. This caused a 20 day delay.

  • Calculating all the delays (16, 20, 42, 12, 8, 20) totals 118 days which extends Castillo’s pre-trial detention from the end of May 2021 to September 23, 2021.

• The defense asked the court to reconsider their decision. They argued that the law allows them the right to file motions to defend their client. All of the presented motions were part of a legitimate exercise of the law. Castillo has been in pre-trial detention for 3 years, over the 2.5 year limit.

• The prosecutors were in support of the court’s decision to extend the pre-trial detention arguing that the decision is based on the law. The law allows for the court to extend pre-trial detention beyond 2.5 years to account for delays in the legal process. They also argued that Castillo’s defense has intentionally delayed the process.

• The private accusers supported the decision as well arguing that it is not just the accused that has rights, but also the victims in a process, which have the right to a trial within a fair time frame. They argued that the defense has abused their right to present legal motions and have thus delayed the process.

DAY TWENTY-FOUR: Trial Against David Castillo

Last update: May 26 at 4:17 pm

Main Points of the Day

• Telecommunication expert Brenda Barahona finished on the stand. The court notifies all parties that the prosecution’s evidence has mostly been presented. Over the next few days, the attorneys representing the Cáceres family will present their evidence including testimony from Daniel Atala, three expert witnesses, and testimony from Berta’s daughter, Bertita Zúniga, among others. The trial is convened for 9 am to noon tomorrow.

More Details

The Defense Continues Questioning Expert Brenda Barahona

• Brenda Barahona begins by answering a question posed the day prior but that required a more in-depth look at her notes. Berta Cáceres was close to the airport on November 24, 2015. According to a chat message, Sergio said that Berta wasn’t going to be present because she left to go to the US.

• Q: On pg. 406, can you explain who Henrry Hernandez was negotiating with between February 18 and 21? A: It’s a whole audio conversation. Hernandez is communicating with Mariano Díaz about what one of the hitman said. He said it doesn’t matter if it’s a mayor or anyone, what is important is the money.

• Q: According to the synopsis from the judicial file 484-2015, who is ‘Comandante’? A: I was only sworn in to examine the parts of that chat that were relevant for this case.

• Q: Since January 4, the date that corresponds to the timeframe you were sworn in to examine, who was Mariano Díaz working with to commit crimes? A: I only examined the chats between Mariano Díaz and the suspicious people that are part of this investigation

• Q: Why didn’t you analyze the conversations with Mariano and ‘Comandante’ if they were talking about murder? A: Because ‘Comandante’ was not identified as a suspicious individual in this investigation

• Q: Why were they not suspicious if they talk about homicides and other crimes? For example, Mariano Díaz said he communicated with Comandante, Selvin and Misael to plan some sort of crime? A: They didn’t give me that line of investigation. I was sworn in to examine only numbers that were identified as suspicious.

• Q: What level or degree of wiretapping was used on the phone number assigned to David Castillo? A: I don’t know the degree of intervention on the phone because I was not the technician who was in charge of that.

• Q: When you said that you had the evidence from judicial file 416 [it’s unclear what file this is], why didn’t you analyze this information in your study of people’s involvement in the crime? For example, when Henrry Hernandez’s mom talked about who gave weapons to Henrry. It also establishes that Henrry had a relationship with people involved in drug trafficking? A: They were not identified as suspicious in this case

• Q: Would you have investigated the communications between Comandante, Selvin and Misael, if they were suspicious and they communicated with Mariano Díaz? A: Yes

• Q: What are they [people involved in the chat which is unclear but may be Mariano Diaz and Henrry Hernandez] referring to when they talk about “good livestock”? A: He’s talking about drugs.

• Q: According to your synopsis, who was Mariano referring to when he talked about the people in charge? A: When he talks about people in charge, he’s talking about Douglas Bustillo

• Q: What are they talking about when they say they are going to buy livestock? A: They are talking about drugs.

• Q: Why do you conclude that Bustillo got a loan to make payments? A: Because Mariano says he [Bustillo] doesn’t have the money but he would do everything to get it.

• Q: You said in your report that David Castillo lied to Berta Cáceres about his location. You said he wasn’t in the place he says he was on January 9, 2015. Why? A: He was in several locations on January 8 and 9th, 2015 including Comayagua, Santa Barbara, Cortés, and then in Francisco Morazán.

• Q: Why did you conclude that Castillo lied about being in Tegucigalpa? A: Because he responded that he was in Chamelecon [in San Pedro Sula] at 8:46 but he was in Tegucigalpa on January 9, 2015.

• Q: You said that Castillo told Berta that he was in the “industrial capital” on February 18, 2015. Berta then asks him when he’s coming to Tegucigalpa and David answers “tomorrow”. A: But that same day at 17:46, he was located in Francisco Morazan.

• Q: When did Castillo say he arrived? A: He wrote at 11:27 and said “I just arrived”

• Q: How can you say that when Berta wrote “how’s it going” that she was asking if he had arrived to Tegucigalpa? A: I don’t know but I can say that at 11 pm or so when she asked, he was already in Tegucigalpa.

• Q: Where was Berta Cáceres the day when Castillo told her “I just arrived”? A: In Francisco Morazan.

• Q: On Pg. 22, the contact ‘Jeronimo"‘ contacted someone [unclear. Possibly Berta Cáceres?] on the day of the murder. Did you determine who this was? A: No. In her contacts the number is saved as Jeronimo 2 but the phone company didn’t say whose number it is.

• Q: Do you know what Jeronimo said in his phone call with Berta? A: No, I can’t tell. The phone was not tapped.

• [NOTE: The defense then begins clarifying different messages sent to different Whatsapp chat groups called ‘Seguridad PHAZ’ [PHAZ Security] and ''Coordinación PHAZ” [PHAZ Coordination]. It was difficult to follow the line of questioning written below]

• Q: You made a correction in your analysis about where David Castillo said ‘copied’. You established also that two Whatsapp chats exist - PHAZ Security and PHAZ Coordination. In message 249, you said that the two messages were sent by Sergio and then a second, what chat is that part of? A: This is a communication between Castillo and Sergio Rodriguez

• Q: But chat 298, PHAZ Security, is a group chat, can you explain this? A: It’s a group chat but it says what time the chat was received and who read it. In this case, the message was delivered to Castillo, he read it, and he responded 20 seconds after with the message ‘copied’

• Q: Who else read the chat? A: Jorge Avila, Daniel Atala, and another unidentified number

• Q: After this conversation, you wrote after ‘copied’, that there were three messages. The messages on March 3 are: “Sergio just called me” and then “You should coordinate communication and security” and the third message, “Yes, I’m going to prepare an email”. What chat are these messages from? A: This is chat #159

• Q: After those messages in your report, the next two messages, what chat are they part of? A: It’s the chat #298 on March 3, 2016

• Q: In your experience, how does taking chats from different conversations and putting them together in a report affect the analysis? A: Well here it helps the analysis because in the group chat they are coordinating and then also communicate separately to continue the coordination.

• Q: Go to chat xyz [?], what difference do you find between the two pages [I believe the defense is referring to her preliminary analysis and then her final analysis report]? A: One includes chats and call registries that were not included in the first report.

• Q: What knowledge is needed to alter a PDF file? A: I don’t know because I’ve never modified a PDF.

Court Reports About Remaining Evidence Presented by the Prosecution

• The court was unable to call protected witness ABC-03-03-2016 (Gustavo Castro) to the stand because of the formal manner in which the citation must happen and the additional amount of time it would take for Mexican authorities to reach the witness. The timeframe was laid out in a communication from Mexican authorities to the Honduran government. The prosecution asks that this witness’s previous testimony be admitted in writing to the court.

• The prosecution and court have been unable to locate protected witness Triple A. The prosecution asks if their testimony can be admitted in writing.

• On May 13, the court published citations in the Honduran newspapers El Heraldo and La Tribuna notifying Jose Rafael Guerrero, Juan Carlos Beltran and Junior Alfredo Zambrano Aguilar that they were being called to appear in court. [This is in line with Honduran law when someone cannot be located]. The court has not received a response from any of the three individuals. All three were expected to ratify documents presented by the prosecution as evidence.

• The court is waiting to hear from witness Lilian Esperanza Lopez Benítez.

Schedule for Tomorrow

• Paula Quintero, an individual proposed by the prosecution to either ratify documents or provide some sort of testimony, still has to appear in court.

• The judge mentioned that if time permits, the private accuser’s first witness, Daniel Atala will testify tomorrow.

DAY TWENTY-THREE: Trial Against David Castillo

Last update: May 26 at 3:37 pm

Main Points of the Day

• Castillo’s defense continues to question telecommunications analyst Brenda Barahona, attempting to create doubt about her investigative methods and pointing out details that may aid in undermining her analysis. The most noteworthy are the number of phone calls made by two unidentified phone numbers to two of the hitman on March 2 and 3, 2016. These numbers were not identified as suspicious and were not investigated. Most of the defense’s questioning focused on details that did not create doubt about the strongest evidence against Castillo (communication with Douglas Bustillo that corresponds to plans with the hitman to commit the murder)

• The trial will continue tomorrow at 9 am.

As the trial is underway, the feminist encampment remains outside of the Supreme Court in Tegucigalpa. The Honduras Solidarity Network (HSN) is doing a fundraiser to support the women’s presence at a critical moment of the trial. For more information, go here.

More Details

Castillo’s Defense Attorney Continues to Question Telecommunication Analyst Brenda Barahona

• Barahona began by providing the answers to questions that the defense had asked on Friday but that required a more in-depth revision of the data. The defense had asked about the calls coming from the phone numbers 8929-5274 and 9526-4387 on March 2 and 3rd to Edilson Duarte and Elvin Rápalo.

  • Edilson Duarte received two phone calls from 8929-5274 on March 2 at 14:04 and 17:57 and five calls from 9526-4387 on March 3 in the morning, early afternoon, and evening.

  • Elvin Rápalo received 3 calls from 8929-5274 on March 2 and 13 calls and 36 text messages from that number on March 3. And one call on March 3 from 9526-4387.

• Q: According to your analysis of the involvement of this number, how did you determine what numbers were suspicious? A: In this case, the numbers that were identified as suspicious were based on the timeline and the day of and day after the murder, based on information from telephone antennas.

• Q: Based on this timeline you refer to, what do you make of the calls [between 8940-6538, Duarte and Rápalo]? A: They were in contact after the crime was committed.

• Q: Why was it not suspicious that this number had had no contact with these people before the murder but did immediately after? A: No because they were not located at the crime scene. Both numbers made contact outside of the hours of the murder and I did not receive the phone data from these numbers.

• Q: Why in your hypothesis and expert analysis, did you identify the call between Sergio Rodriguez and Douglas Bustillo at 6 am on March 3 as suspicious? Because they were identified as suspicious.

• Q: What importance as an analyst do you put on investigating the frequency of calls from the two numbers on March 2 and 3rd? A: If the numbers were investigated then they and any other numbers would have been identified as suspicious and thus investigated.

• Q: What range of time did you use to identify suspicious calls and communications? A: From 00:00:00 on March 2 to 11:59:59 on March 3, 2016.

• Q: What was the first phone calls received on March 2 by Elvin Rápalo and Edilson Duarte? A: Rápalo received a call on March 2 at 6:09 from 8929-5274 and Edilson at 6:05 on March 2nd.

• Q: After Edilson received the call at 6:05 am, who did he communicate with? He communicated with the same number again (8929-5274)

• Q: After the three phone calls with that number, who did he communicate with after? A: He communicated with Henrry Hernandez and Oscar Torres.

• Q: Where was Elvin Rápalo from January to March 2016? A: He was located in Atlántida, Cortés, Intibuca, Santa Barbara, and Yoro.

• Q: Where was he the majority of that time? A: Arizona, Tornabe, Ceiba … many places.

• Q: And in San Pedro Zacapa, how many times was he there? A: 395 times in San Pedro Zacapa, Santa Barbara

• Q: And in Concepción del Sur? A: 18 times

• Q: What are the exact dates that Rápalo was in Arizona before March 2? A: On February 14-20, 28-29, and March 1, 2016.

• Q: Look at page 387 of your analysis, according to the data, who was in touch with Henrry Hernandez/ What does Henrry say? A: Henrry said something about the “high ups” (people in charge)

• Q: When Henrry says “well, I’m going to call the higher ups to see what they say” who is he referring to? A: Henrry is referring to Douglas. You can tell if you keep reading.

• Q: How did you determine who the “higher ups” are? A: Because Henrry then communicated with Bustillo.

• Q: What importance did you give to the synopsis provided by the other court [court documents provided for the analyst of wiretaps of Mariano Diaz’s phone that were ordered for another investigation]? A: Importance was given to the fact that it was a suspicious number and it had been tapped since 2015. The number had been involved in with other suspicious individuals according to telephone antennas and this shows that there was some sort of planning going on.

• Q: On the synopsis on pg 4573, who are the “higher ups” (personas arriba)? A: I can’t answer this because the synopsis is from a drug trafficking case, not this murder case.

• Q: Who does the other case describe as the people in charge (higher ups)? A: I don’t know because I did not work on that case. I was sworn in as an expert on this homicide case, not the drug case where this information comes from.

• Q: According to message xyz, who communicates with the people in charge? A: It’s Henrry [Hernandez] that says that because he spoke with Douglas Bustillo

• Q: How many communications did you find in your analysis between Henrry and David Castillo? A: None.

• Q: How many between Mariano Diaz and Castillo? A: None

• Q: How many people is it referred to when it’s says “the people in charge”? A: It’s plural but I don’t know exactly how many

• Q: What does plural mean? A: It means more than one

• Q: On pg. 423, who are the participants negotiation with? A: I can’t say because they are speaking about different situations. He [either Mariano or Henrry] is referring to a person that Henry is with and Henry says the person has an issue to deal with.

• Q: How many people are talking in that particular wiretap? A: Two, Douglas and David.

• Q: According to the timeline, what issue did the person have to deal with? A: I don’t know because that person was not identified as suspicious [and therefore was not investigated].

• Q: In your conclusions, you say that Douglas and David meet on November 22 to plan a murder. What basis do you have for this interpretation? A: It says that because there is sufficient information after analyzing all the evidence given to me. Bustillo was talking about completing the 50% and they discuss a meeting.

• Q: Where in the messages do they talk about killing someone? A: No one is going to talk about killing someone directly in a message

• Q: The message, “complete the 50%”, does that mean that it was paid or going to be paid? A: He’s asking for the payment to be made.

• Q: In November 2015, did the meeting take place? A: I can’t say but both, according to phone data, were located in [the department of] Francisco Morazán.

• Q: According to your timeline, where did David Castillo say he was going to meet Bustillo on November 22? A: In Chile’s [restaurant] in Los Proceres [a neighbourhood in Tegucigalpa].

• Q: At 13:12 on November 22, where is David Castillo according to your analysis? A: At the airport in Francisco Morazán

• Q: And the next phone activity? A: In Talanga [municipality north of Tegucigalpa]

• Q: On November 21 and 22, 2015, what activity according to phone data belongs to David? A: One phone call on November 21 between David Castillo and Daniel Atala. But thats just between the numbers that were identified as suspicious. There were other calls from other numbers.

• Q: Let’s go back to your conclusions, how can you say that Castillo was meeting in Chile’s if he’s located at the airport? A: I never said they met there [and the expert reads her exact wording from her conclusions].

• Q: Why did you conclude that they met that day to plan the murder? A: They met many times, not just those days.

• Q: But the conclusions says they met in November 2015, can you show me those messages? A: It says that if you look at all the evidence - messages, audios, everything - there is sufficient reason to conclude that Castillo and Bustillo communicated to plan the murder.

• Q: Can you show me an objective message that demonstrates concretely that they met to plan the murder? A: I cannot say concretely but with the messages “aborted mission” and the answer “copy that,” thats a pretty clear indication.

• Q: On November 25, where was Douglas Bustillo? A: In Cortés, Atlántida, and Cortés.

• Q: According to the wiretaps, what dates is there communication between Bustillo and Mariano Diaz? In 2015: August 2015, September 13, 18, 24, 26, 27, October 24, December 31. In 2016: January 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 20- 22, 25, 29, 30 and February 1-4, 8, 13, 25 and March 2, 4, 6, 18, 19, and 28.

• Q: From the other judicial file, from what date did you have access to Mariano Diaz’s wiretap data? A: Starting on January 4, 2016.

• Q: How trustworthy are the wiretaps? A: It’s the information we are given from the phone companies.

• Q: What role do the phone companies or responsibility do they have? A: You would have to ask for their company policies.

• Q: Why does TIGO [phone company] attribute this number to David Castillo? A: Because that is what the phone company has indicated.

• Q: On Pg. 768, you said that Castillo communicated with Bustillo after [inaudible], how did they communicate? A: At 13:55 in chat number xyz on February 20, 2016.

• Q: When you say “they”, who wrote who? A: Bustillo wrote to Castillo

• Q: Where is Castillo’s response? A: He could have responded via other means. I don’t have a call to see if there was a response.

• Q: After the 20th, what communication between Castillo and Bustillo occurred between February 20 and March 2? A: [answer inaudible]

• Q: How did they communicate after February 20th, if there was no response from that message? A: It was a message that was recovered from the phone but that had been deleted. Maybe it was not a complete message.

• Q: Can you tell us Bustillo’s location from February 21 to 24, 2016? A: He was in Francisco Morazán, Comayagua, Intibuca and then again in Francisco Morazán.

• Q: In conclusion 23, you said that Bustillo went to Intibuca and stayed there, why did you conclude that if Bustillo was in Francisco Morazán? A: On Feb 21, he was in Intibuca and then in Francisco Morazán on the 23rd.

• Q: How many hours was he in Intibuca on the 21? A: He was there for four hours

• Q: From where did you receive information that Henrry Hernandez was in the military? A: I don’t remember but it might have been in the investigative file.

• Q: Look at the chat on February 16, who is talking in this chat? A: Mariano Diaz and Henrry Hernandez.

• Q: Who is “compañerito” they are referring to? A: Henrry is referring to Douglas Bustillo.

• Q; When does Henrry communicate with Bustillo? A: From September 11, 2015 and from the other phone number he had, since January 29, 2016.